Abstract

Bayh‐Dole is shorthand for the public policy in the United States that allows universities to take title to patents on discoveries
made from state‐funded research. The Bayh‐Dole Act, enacted by the US Congress in 1980, has been emulated in many countries
around the world for its putative benefits on national rates of innovation and has exerted a profound influence on university
patenting practices in the United States and abroad. Bayh‐Dole has contributed to the sharp increase in university patenting
activity. Its impact on the innovation system as a whole is harder to measure and has been the subject of scholarly and political
controversy. While proponents of this policy argue that it has injected American innovation with new dynamism, other analysts
have cast doubt on the economic benefits of Bayh‐Dole. Furthermore, there are concerns that the Act negatively effects academic
cooperation and runs against the public mission of universities.

Key Concepts

Technology transfer is the dynamic exchange of knowledge among universities, industry and governmental agencies.

The Bayh‐Dole policy of facilitating university ownership of state‐funded discoveries has been emulated in many countries,
which has helped increase the rates of university patenting in the United States and abroad.

Increased rates of patenting per se are not indicators of increased rates of new product development and new economic activity.

The actual effects of Bayh‐Dole on the innovation system are hard to measure and the subject of scholarly and political controversy
within the United States and elsewhere.

Patenting and licensing constitute just one of many modes of university technology transfer, which also occurs inter alia through student training, collaborative research agreements, dissemination of new knowledge through publication and public
talks.

Bayh‐Dole has become a lightning rod for debates about the commercialisation of research and higher education reform.

Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Gebhardt C and Terra BRC (2000) The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29 (2): 313–330. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4.

Federal Council on Science and Technology (1978) Report on Government Patent Policy 1973–1976. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Geuna A and Nesta L (2003) University Patenting and its Effects on Academic Research (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 492282). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=492282.

Mowery DC, Nelson RR, Sampat BN and Ziedonis A (2004) Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University‐industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh‐Dole Act in the United States. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.

National Research Council (2010) Managing University Intellectual Property in the Public Interesthttp://www.nap.edu/catalog/13001/managing‐university‐intellectual‐property‐in‐the‐public‐interest. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Slaughter S and Rhoades G (1996) The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science, Technology & Human Values 21 (3): 303–339. DOI: 10.1177/016224399602100303.

Mowery DC, Nelson RR, Sampat BN and Ziedonis A (2004) Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University‐industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh‐Dole Act in the United States. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.

National Research Council (2010) Managing University Intellectual Property in the Public Interest. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13001/managing‐university‐intellectual‐property‐in‐the‐public‐interest. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.